Karam Chand Vs. State of Haryana - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- sham sunder, j.1. this appeal is directed against the order dated 4.2.2008 rendered by the presiding office, special court, kurukshetra, vide which motor cycle no. hr-41-a-8329 make tvs max-100 was confiscated by the trial court.2. on 31.8.2004, jai singh alias jaisi son of risala, in the area of village teoker, police station, pehowa, was found in conscious possession of 40 kgs. poppy husk, without any permit or licence, being carried by him on motor cycle no. hr-41-a-8329. the challan was presented against jai singh for the offence punishable under section 15 of the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances act, 1985 (hereinafter referred as the 'act'). ultimately, after trial he was convicted and sentenced vide judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 4.12.2007. since the motor cycle, aforesaid, bad been used for transporting the contraband and had been released to karam chand, superdar, a notice as per the provisions of section 60 of the act, was served upon him, who in pursuance thereof, produced the motor cycle. he did not file reply to the notice.3. after hearing the counsel for karam chand, and the public prosecutor for the state, vide order dated 4.1.2008, the motor cycle aforesaid was confiscated.4. feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal was filed by karam chand, appellant.5. none appeared on behalf of the appellant, despite due notice to the counsel for the appellant, that the appeal was fixed for regular hearing. in these circumstances, no alternative was left with this court, than to go through the trial court order, record of the case, hear the arguments of the counsel for the respondent, and decide the appeal, on merits, as that amounted to due compliance of the relevant provisions of the code of criminal procedure as held in dharampal v. state of u.p. 2008(1) lh (s.c.) 225.6. i have heard the counsel for the respondent, and have gone through the record of the case, carefully.7. it is evident from the perusal of the record that due notice was given to karam chand, appellant, to show cause, as to why the motor cycle, in question, be not confiscated. in pursuance of that notice, he put in appearance, but did not file reply. on the other hand, he produced the motor-cycle, before the court, and, ultimately, that was confiscated. it is further evident that the motor cycle was being used by jai singh for the purpose of carrying poppy husk, weighing 40 kgs. and ultimately, he was convicted and sentenced vide judgment, referred to above, by the trial court. the trial court complied with the relevant provisions of law, before ordering the confiscation of the motorcycle in question. due opportunity was given to karam chand, to put forth his version, and lead evidence. despite affording due opportunity, he did not lead any evidence. since karam chand appellant, knowingly permitted the use of motor cycle, by jai singh for transporting the contraband, it was liable to be confiscated, in accordance with the provisions of law.8. there is no illegality or infirmity in the order dated 4.1.2008, passed by the trial court. the same, therefore, deserves to be upheld.9. for the reasons recorded above, criminal appeal fto.589-sb of 2008 is dismissed.